Plastic pollution in our seas

[transmitterdan]

I think we have forgotten why there are single use bags in groceries? Does anyone recall why people switched from reusable to one use?

I remember because I am old enough (too old?).

Those who forget the mistakes of history are destined to repeat them...

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by svenskflicka

I'm with you on this one. We use the reusable bags. We have four decent sized ones and have replaced 10-15 plastic bags per week, for 6 years now.

That aside, no one is going to convince me that drilling oil and converting it into 1k plastic bags is better for the environment that growing cotton and making 1 bag....

See that is me, I can buy the argument or the energy required to manufacture, transport etc. got it.
However I’m not hung up on that, I’m hung up on the thousands of plastic bags that are not in the land fill, hanging on fences and in the Oceans etc.

That is the thing that amazed me when I was in Kuwait, Iraq etc. any kind of fence became almost immediately a plastic trash sieve, sort of how I think snow fences are, except of course these filtered plastic trash, most often bags cause that is what the wind blows around.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Cotton and soybeans pull massive amounts of nutrients from the soil. So most cotton is grown using lots of nitrogen (ammonium nitrate or anhydrous ammonia) as fertilizer and of course pesticides. Nothing humans do is free of environmental impact.

Not to mention water
Lots and lots and lots of water

Australia is in severe drought, has been for years yet Cubbie station (cotton) uses more water in a year than 3 capital cites combined , has sucked the river systems dry, for a crop worth a pittance in the scheme of agriculture here.

Hemp on the other hand would be a far more sustainable product.

[transmitterdan]

Why don’t you also propose that doctors and nurses use cotton gloves instead of one time use latex gloves?

We are talking about something that is 1 one billionth of the plastics problem. Without even a second thought of the down sides to the alternatives.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Saving the forests and polluting the planet. That was driving by oil money.

No, I don’t think so, at one time the environmentalist were screaming about the death of the forests etc.
I assume they are being stripped even faster now, but you don’t hear about it.

Many people invent and don’t see the impact their inventions become, from Alfred Nobel to the Maxims etc.
We have plastic and not paper because they are cheaper and people will tolerate it.
In all Military commissaries your asked paper or plastic, like you used to be years ago. The paper is of course recyclable, the plastic not.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Just to be clear, I completely believe the use of reusable bags can definitely be a net-benefit to the environment. I also believe it can be a net-benefit to own and travel via modest sailing vessel. But in both cases the actual environmental impact depends on how one uses these things.

In the bag case it relies on how the reusable bag is manufactured, distributed, used and reused, and then disposed of. Given the high number of reuses needed to make reusable bags fall on the plus side, I am dubious as to their benefits. Just like a cruising sailboat can be a net plus if one sails most of the time. How many do?

Interestingly, the transition from paper to plastic bags was a case study used in my university environmental assessment program. Yes... plastic bags were touted as a positive environmental shift. In the life-cycle analysis we conducted the outcome suggested otherwise, but the train was rolling at that point and we got rid of paper bags in favour of plastic.

You know Mike I’d answer that by saying that even if the sailboat never raises its sails, due to its tiny little lawnmower engine and efficient hull, and slow speed it’s fuel consumption when compared to say a Sportfisherman is trivial.

Things aren’t black and white, if you drive very little it may be more ecologically sound for you to keep the old fuel hog as opposed to buying a new efficient car to let sit in the garage.
The answer is always it depends.

Marina I’m in now, the majority of the boats are big power boats, but it seems they never, ever move. They are Winter homes for people from up North. So their fuel consumption is nil, but if they were out and about I bet they would each burn 100 gls a day.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by svenskflicka

I didnt say cotton was free of impact. Oil requires vast resources to explore and drill and contaminates our soil and water when spilled. No way 1000 bags that will never disappear is better than 1 bag that will decompose readily.

Plastic grocery bags do not last “forever”. That’s just silly talk.

And yes, one use bags have a significant health benefit over reusable cloth bags.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

And yes, one use bags have a significant health benefit over reusable cloth bags.

How is that? You take a few plastic bags with you to put the bloody meat in before it goes into the cotton bag. Much as you try your going to end up with some plastic bags, just don’t throw them away until you have to, and then line the trash can with them and get on least use.
Besides the cotton bags wash with your clothes if you think it’s needed. A good quality cotton bag ought to last I’d assume a decade at least. we didn’t start it until we moved on the boat, but that’s been I think going on four years and they are still in great shape.
Our cotton Bags zip closed and they are thick and strong and will not bust or spill things into the dinghy.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Why don’t you also propose that doctors and nurses use cotton gloves instead of one time use latex gloves?

We are talking about something that is 1 one billionth of the plastics problem. Without even a second thought of the down sides to the alternatives.

I may be wrong, latex is a rubber product not a petroleum product.

[transmitterdan]

Actually most hospitals use nitrile gloves. It is a synthetic rubber not real rubber.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Actually most hospitals use nitrile gloves. It is a synthetic rubber not real rubber.

Good info.. I'd guess that is a petroleum. product. I guess taping enough rubber tree plants is a bitch. I believe they do separate from other items for disposal.

[RaymondR]

I notice most of the cotton stuff I buy is cotton polyester, where and how do they grow polyester?

Since the tractors and transportation all consume petroleum products there's probably less hydrocarbon consumed just making the plastic bags which the petrochemical industry produces from methane.

The problem is not that we produce plastic items, it's that we don't dispose of it properly.

Get Greta onto the problem, we'll knock it off in no time.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

The problem is not that we produce plastic items, it's that we don't dispose of it properly.

That's just shifting all responsibility to the consumer. Industry gets the convenience and cost-savings, consumers and gov't get the bill for cleanup.

A more balanced approach would reduce or eliminate many single-use plastics from entering the system in the first place. Do we really need plastic microbeads in toothpaste??? Plastic coffee stir-sticks? There are many others.

Here's a great overview of plastics, and what/how they enter the oceans.

I agree that proper disposal would alleviate much of the problem, but this is expensive. Assuming you don't want higher taxes to cover that, the costs need to be frontloaded into those products; industry needs to chip in for the full lifecycle cost of what they choose to use. More realistic costs would make less-polluting options more attractive.

[a64pilot]

The issue of plastics in toothpaste and shampoos to make them look more appealing, as well as plastic coffee stir sticks is a consumer issue.
If consumers quit buying those products then the manufacturers would shift gears very quickly.
The truth is that people like their toothpaste and shampoo to be pearly looking and they buy plastic stir sticks because rejuvenated want them.

It’s up to the consumers to make the manufactures change, and not by legislation. Just quit buying the stuff, when there is an acceptable substitute. Like full cotton clothing and wood stir sticks and non pearly shampoo etc.
Sometimes there isn’t , I don’t want hemp lines or canvas sails.

But if we quit buying plastic, then the manufacturers will loose money and nothing motivates a company like lost profits.
They say they figure out there is more profit in being green, they will become that way.
Why do you think Burger King is selling a non meat burger? Think they suddenly became animal lovers?

[a64pilot]

Putting a tax on things to supposedly pay for proper disposal will not work, it will just increase taxes, the money will be spent elsewhere, there are any number of examples of that.
If your a Florida boat part of our registration fees is set aside to deal with derelict boats, that’s why threre are no derelict boats in Fl right?

However what may work is a rebate or whatever it’s called on each item, turn it in and you get cash back. That is why you see people walking on the side of the road picking up cans, for cash.
Put a bounty of X amount of money for clean plastic turned in, maybe by weight or maybe by each piece, and I bet you would find most of it being turned in.
As a kid every kid collected Coke bottles, nobody threw one away or broke one